Death penalty in Koran?

unknownuser

If we exclude all religious matters and just talk life and human relations, then as far as I know only killing somone delibertly deserve capital punishment, however I believe that even with a case of delibertae murder a provision may be allowed to spare the capital punishment

Allah knows best

Peace

That is the only crime I am also aware of. However, personally I believe this must be read together with 16176, which refers to proportionality between crime and punishment. Let us analyse what the death penalty involves. For it to make sense, the court must

have the intention to impose the death penalty
execute the death penalty
not regret the death penalty (this must be a requirement because a court of law cannot at the same time have the intention to execute and plan to regret the execution - that is simply not logical)

Therefore, I think that the death penalty can only be awarded in the case where their exists proportionality between the crime and the punishment, and that therefore in order to get the death penalty, ALL three of the following conditions must exist (and hence be proven in court)

intention to murder
the act of murder
no remorse

If there is either remorse or lack of intent on the part of the murderer, the death penalty would by definition be out of proportion with the crime committed, and hence a lesser punishment than the death penalty must be given. Also, this should apply up until the execution... that is to say that if there is remorse at any time before execution, then the execution will not go forward and a lesser punishment will be given instead.

As for giving time for the remorse to surface, I believe the time that it takes for the court case to be justly plead, analyzed and decided is sufficiently long.

Any comments?

to be honest you said it really well

I agree totally with you

cheers

JHamza

Salaam All,
I agree with claurianta,but how does one really know that a person is really sorry or if they are just faking it,just to get out of the death penalty?

Just like some in America plead tempory insanity just to get away with the crime..

claurianta

Salaam All,
I agree with claurianta,but how does one really know that a person is really sorry or if they are just faking it,just to get out of the death penalty?

Just like some in America plead tempory insanity just to get away with the crime..

That's a good question, and my response would be that in case of doubt, a crime (or part of a crime) should not be imputed to a person. Therefore, yes, it does become an easy way of getting out of the death penalty (though not out of some lesser punishment for the murder), but I think we would rather let live a hundred who're faking remorse than to execute one who truly is remorseful.

BTW... I think the insanity plea is valid in the Koran too, because it does seem that lack of intent does attenuate the crime. For example mistakenly killing someone does not equal murder and the punishment seems to more of a reparation than a punishment. So just like in most civil and common law legal systems, lack of intent would exonerate the crime, but there could still be cause for civil liability and therefore reparations because the accused should have taken more care.

thegod

claurianta wrote...
Therefore, I think that the death penalty can only be awarded in the case where their exists proportionality between the crime and the punishment, and that therefore in order to get the death penalty, ALL three of the following conditions must exist (and hence be proven in court)

intention to murder
the act of murder
no remorse

does quran say somewhere to the effect that in some cases persecution is worse than slaughter?

let us suppose that the person does not kill the victim but causes an irreversable damage, in that case? an eye for an eye?

claurianta

let us suppose that the person does not kill the victim but causes an irreversable damage, in that case? an eye for an eye?

I was wondering when this question would come up.

The eye for an eye argument does raise another key question, that of proportionality, which is a requirement of 16126. The article speaks of proportionality, not equality. I would say that the Koran is quite clear that death is the ultimate price, and that one person's life cannot be valued over that of another... that is to say all humans are valued the same. Now, when it comes to other things, like property or even body parts, there is a subjectivity that comes in. For example, if your work requires you to use your hands, is not the damage you suffer the loss of your hands PLUS the loss of wages? Thus it becomes impossible to evaluate the value of one's body parts, or to determine whose hands have more value. And I think that this impossibility to determine objectively excludes any kind of permanent physical damage as punishment (besides a life for a life, as all life is equally precious). That is not to say that it is not justified in certain circumstances, but rather that we don't have the capacity to determine objectively the subjective value of a body part, and hence the difference in the subjective values of the body parts of the victims. So even though theoretically justifiable, the punishment cannot be exacted due to the practical impossibility of measuring the subjective value.

I say here subjective, because the damage done to you is the basis of the proportionality verse 16126. How can you with certainty say that taking out the other guys eye is PROPORTIONAL to the loss of your eye? (Proportional does not mean equal). And when it comes to body parts, I think only the owner and God can be the ultimate arbiters of value. Therefore, no court of law should impose a penalty that imposes permanent physical damage, as we do cannot determine what exactly is the value of that physical damage.

thegod

i would like to hear ur view on whether quran does indeed state that persecution is worse than slaughter or have i misunderstood something?

if it does state that, then it brings me to ur proposition that death is the ultimate price. in that case if 'life for life' be a valid and just proposition, then what would be the just and proportionate (earthly) punishment for persecution (which is worse than killings, while death is the ultimate price)?

regards ur observation that a's eyes may be less valuable to him than b's eyes maybe to b, can u say with certainty that a's life is no less or more valuable to him than b's life is to b? -)

claurianta

i would like to hear ur view on whether quran does indeed state that persecution is worse than slaughter or have i misunderstood something?

if it does state that, then it brings me to ur proposition that death is the ultimate price. in that case if 'life for life' be a valid and just proposition, then what would be the just and proportionate (earthly) punishment for persecution (which is worse than killings, while death is the ultimate price)?

regards ur observation that a's eyes may be less valuable to him than b's eyes maybe to b, can u say with certainty that a's life is no less or more valuable to him than b's life is to b? -)

Could you perhaps guide me to a verse that says that persecution is worse than murder?

I have now analysed more carefully the verses dealing with killing/murder, namely 2178, 492-93, 532-33, 1731,33, 6151, 2568. When killing by mistake, there is a clear indication of responsibility and an appropriate compensation decreed (492). From this I think we can easily see that lack of intention=lack of crime=no punishment (but compensation can still be demanded). So that problem is solved in a clear fashion. As for the case at question, punishment for intentional killing, that is murder, the punishment given in the Koran is Hell for eternity. No express worldly punishment is given for murder. However, it is clear that it is indeed a great crime to kill someone except in "just cause" (see 532, 1731, 1733) - therefore there do exist just causes for which a person may be killed - which according to 532 are as retaliation for the crimes of murder or corruption in land (the punishment for corruption in the land is reiterated in the following verse).
Seeing as murdering one person is like murdering all of mankind (532) I think we can agree that there really is no graves worldly crime than murder. I am not sure what "corruption in the land" means (must be something very bad), perhaps a problem with the translation (my paper translation and the Free-Minds translation both use the term - anyone care to define it more precisely so we can analyse why indeed it deserves the death penalty, and then in what cases - verses 2748-49 and 284 would indicate that going around killing people without just cause definitely qualifies as corruption in the land, but no other clear indications to the definition are give).
It seems that 2178 only applies in cases of warfare (=to corruption in the land?) (and hence the word retaliation instead of punishment) - that is it decrees collective punishment against the group attacking a group of believers, though I would add that it cannot include their non-attacking kinsmen, as no-one is responsible for the acts of another (351. In war the responsibility for the damage is shared though as they all had the intention of killing the believers, so they are all equally guilty in the deaths caused, and thus the allowed retaliation is equivalent to the deaths caused. It is NOT logical to apply this verse in the case of simple murder, because it is highly irrational to find a woman to condemn to death when a man kills a woman - goes totally against 3518.

So what do we find in conclusion?
Killing is allowed in two restricted cases

Punishment for intentional murder - but the regular limits of proportionality must still be followed (1733).
Punishment for "corruption in the land" - I would say that the evidence points to "corruption in the land" (at least the kind punishable by death) means a group of people going around killing... the exact act may not be imputable to one specific person, but the intention (and the act of abatement to murder at the very least) is common to the entire group, so retaliation (that is killing) may be exacted from this group in accordance with the principle of equality laid out in 2178. I think it reasonable to try to at least find the ones who actually committed the act, but if that is not possible, then the equality principle of 2178 should be used against those who had the intention to kill.

As for the argument of is one life worth another life, I think God through the Koran gives quite a clear answer yes, it is. So in the propotionality equation, one life equals one life. However, to fill the equation, we need to include the elements of intent and remorse so as to not depass the limits (1733) laid out by God in 16126.

So in sum, the subjectivity argument cannot hold in the case of a life for a life because God gives us a clear answer on this question. The argument for the eye for an eye can definitely be made in accordance with 548, to be applied with the same elements of intent and remorse seen above. I do however believe that as with a life for a life, it is a maximum restriction, and that a lesser punishment is preferable (as edicted by the same verse, 54. But I do think it is incumbent on any Muslim to consider for himself/herself how much damage he will be inflicting in demanding an eye for an eye, and as objectively as possible comparing it to his own hardship. And so though I would never myself dare to request such a retaliatory punishment, I suppose the argument could be made that it is a valid maximum, but I would question the intentions of anyone sustaining that argument and requesting such a punishment - more likely than not he is not objectively analysing the situation but is rather allowing his emotions to control him. Personally, however, I would be inclined to argue that an eye for an eye means that you should not ask for unreasonable punishment - it creates a kind of maximum punishment, rather than edict the appropriate punishment. So I think it simply repeats the proportionality disposition of 16126 (a necessary repetition as one tells of what was edicted to the Jews , and other confirms that edict in a more direct language - on the note of confirmation, it seems to me that God confirms the literal meaning of a life for a life , but the figurative meaning (=proportionality) of an eye for an eye ).

thegod

claurianta wrote...
Could you perhaps guide me to a verse that says that persecution is worse than murder?

2217 They ask you about the restricted month "Is there fighting in it?" Say "Much fighting is in it, and to repel from the path of God and to disbelieve in Him, and at the Restricted Temple, to drive its inhabitants out is far greater with God, and persecution is worse than being killed." And they still will fight you until they turn you back from your system if they are able. And whoever of you turns back from his system, and he dies while disbelieving, then these have nullified their work in this life and the next; these are the people of the Fire, in it they will abide eternally!

claurianta wrote...
because it is highly irrational to find a woman to condemn to death when a man kills a woman

i cannot quite get 2178, what is meant by free for free and slave for slave and woman for woman. does that mean even if a 'free' kills a 'slave', then a 'slave' has to be killed? or if a 'slave' kills a 'free', a 'free' has to be killed? and woman for woman? yes

as u point out that the utility of an eye or any other part to its owner is something which v cannot determine, would it be unfair to suppose in the absence of any certain knowledge that they are equally valuable to any 2 persons?

i really think i am going to keep wondering about 2 178!

claurianta

claurianta wrote...
Could you perhaps guide me to a verse that says that persecution is worse than murder?

2217 They ask you about the restricted month "Is there fighting in it?" Say "Much fighting is in it, and to repel from the path of God and to disbelieve in Him, and at the Restricted Temple, to drive its inhabitants out is far greater with God, and persecution is worse than being killed." And they still will fight you until they turn you back from your system if they are able. And whoever of you turns back from his system, and he dies while disbelieving, then these have nullified their work in this life and the next; these are the people of the Fire, in it they will abide eternally!

claurianta wrote...
because it is highly irrational to find a woman to condemn to death when a man kills a woman

i cannot quite get 2178, what is meant by free for free and slave for slave and woman for woman. does that mean even if a 'free' kills a 'slave', then a 'slave' has to be killed? or if a 'slave' kills a 'free', a 'free' has to be killed? and woman for woman? yes

as u point out that the utility of an eye or any other part to its owner is something which v cannot determine, would it be unfair to suppose in the absence of any certain knowledge that they are equally valuable to any 2 persons?

i really think i am going to keep wondering about 2 178!

I think for one that 2178 is there as a sort of restriction. Consider 2 or 3 people going out and killing someone together. Is it correct to then take the life of all the perpetrators? I think that 2178 would apply in such a case, to say that only one of the perpetrators can be executed. So basically if you can't find the person who is most responsible, or if they are all equally responsible, you use the 2178 principle if possible (say two men and a woman kill a woman, then the max punishment would be the life of the woman - but do realize that as this is the maximum collective punishment, you would have to let the other two go, so indeed it would be better to ask them all to serve a lesser punishment, but this question is in the hands of the heirs, within limits of 16126). If 2178 cannot be used (say three men kill a woman), then we have recourse to the traditional a life for a life principle (but again the one life is the maximum collective punishment, so you would have to let the others go - again better to demand lesser punishment that can be distributed to all the perpetrators). So I think 2178 is a guiding principle for collective punishment when a group of perpetrators is equally guilty.

As for 2217, having now looked at it I think this persecution is very similar in meaning to the "corruption in the land" (and refers to forcefully taking people away from Islam rather than physical persecution) that is used elsewhere in the Koran, and for which the maximum punishment of death is given in 533. Perhaps it would be fair to say that of those guilty of turning Muslims away from Islam, you can take their lives in equal numbers to the Muslims they have turned away from Islam. So say it is proven that they have FORCEFULLY (2217)turned away 5 men and 6 women away from Islam - I would say that then you can execute 11 of those found guilty, 5 men and 6 women if there are such numbers. If enough men or women cannot be found, then you can again apply the general a life for a life principle, so that 11 are executed, whether men or women.

Do remember of course that remorse would affect these equations, and I do not think you can take the life of any of those that are remorseful.

And do remember that these are maximum punishments, so it is up to the individual or the community to decide if it truly is right to demand the life of the perpetrator despite the fact that s/he is not being remorseful. The heart should guide this decision, and remember that it is always better to remit part or all of a punishment if it at all seems appropriate. You are obliged to use your heart and mind to demand the most just punishment - that is incumbent on the victim(s), and it is only the job of the court to make sure that the alleged crime occurred, and that the victim(s) are not demanding more than the maximum punishment. Therefore one must learn to control one's emotions in order to be able to be just in demanding punishment.

thegod

#coming back to ur criteria that intention of murder, actual murder and no remorse be the pre-conditions to death penalty, what if a, b and c have murdered d
a is the 'most responsible' for murder but is 'remorseful',
b abetted the murder but did not share the intention of murder and is also remorseful,
c did not take any (active) part in murder, but had the intentions (to murder) and is not 'remorseful' as to what happened,
do then all 3 of them get away with the murder?

if n number of people take part in a murder, i see no reason why only 1 of them should be punished. the very fact that each of them shared the intention of murder makes each of them guilty enough, unless any of them had a change of heart and tried to oppose the murder but was overpowered, and in the very least was no longer a willing accomplice. what do u propose be done with the remaining (n-1) people. i definitely would see all of them put to death, unless any of them be opposing the murder.

again, why would it be that in absence of sufficient proof as to which of them was most responsible, a person nearest to the victim in status (read 'free' or 'slave') should be chosen to be put to death. it may very well be that the 'slave' may have played a lesser role than others. then because the person killed was a 'slave', the 'slave' being put to death does not seem particluarly just to me.

further, if the person killed is 'a' type and there are more than 1 'a' type in the group of criminals, should lots be drawn to pull out 1 to be put to death?

i thought quran does not distinguish between souls save for piety; and 'free for free' and 'slave for slave' is something which is going to keep me thinking for a long time. i really was going around under the impression that quran did away with the evils of slavery. cry

claurianta

thegod,

Here are a few replies

No, they don't "get away with murder" but rather none of them would be sentenced to death... I would imagine they would have to pay blood money or there would be some other punishment - I don't know exactly yet. Even someone who kills accidentally and is remorseful has to pay bloodmoney (492) so I'm sure there is a way to find a proportional punishment that doesn't involve killing someone.

I totally agree with you, and hence I do think that 2178 really only applies to something like genocide or other types of mass murder and is not very well suited for individual cases. I think that when more than one person is involved in killing one person, then the punishments should still be stiff, but not equal to death.

Again I think this only applies to cases of mass murder and genocide. God is giving us a maximum limit... that is to say that it is never just to kill more of the perpetrators than have been unjustly killed by them.

As for slavery, the Koran doesn't directly abolish it... however I think it is quite clear that one cannot acquire new slaves, and there are many instances for which slaves must be freed... so basically it created a system whereby eventually all slaves would be freed, and therefore slavery would be abolished, as it now has. I do wonder though if there is a mistranlation with "slave" - perhaps it means a captive? As in a prisoner who is serving his sentence?

One thing I must note is that you have to look at the judicial system set up in the Koran, and not try to compare it to today's judicial system. In the Koran, it is the victim's (or his heirs' in case of murder) right to exact punishment. Therefore, the courts have two responisbilities

to establish the fact of the case that have been proven
to make sure that the punishment the victim wants to exact exceeds neither the proportionality nor the equality principle (a life for a life, an eye for an eye is in some cases a limit on the proportionality principle, and in some cases the proportionality principle is a limit on a life for a life, an eye for an eye - and hence the lesser of the two should be applied - they are both there to protect the perpetrator from unjust punishment).
It is thus incumbent on the victim to think rationally for himself how his prejudice can be appropriately reparated, and in a sense he is also forced to place himself in the shoes of the perpetrator and think how he would feel in the same situation. The victim therefore is the judge of the destiny of the perpetrator (within the limits of proportionality and equality), and bears the responsibility of judging appropriately. The court should only intervene in the punishment phase if the punishment demanded by the victim exceeds the legal limits - hence it is not for the court to suggest a punishment, but rather to control that it is within the limits of BOTH proportionality and equality.

thegod

for the time being i dont think i have anything concrete to offer, but as and when i come up with something to oppose u, i will. p (hope u dont mind because its always refreshing to talk to someone who can think for own's self)

again, its great talking to you -)

unknownuser

Peace claurianta and all. interesting discussions! I would just make a comment. Surely it is not punishable with death or execution if a person turned another away from 'islam'? Bearing in mind that a person could turn away from the 'sunni' way of thinking(for example) and follow the methodology of shiah or 'quran only'. Would this be considered as turning away from islam? We have to be very careful in defining people as muslim or non-muslim.(peoples lives' and their quality of treatment by others can be put at risk with these definitions). Just look at the treatment of some shiahs by some sunnis. Do we want more death and suffering because of religious intolerance and division? (look at iraq,afghanistan,karbala,the crusades etc. etc..) I would like to Increase the peace.(isnt that what islam is for?)
Peace all.

claurianta

Peace claurianta and all. interesting discussions! I would just make a comment. Surely it is not punishable with death or execution if a person turned another away from 'islam'? Bearing in mind that a person could turn away from the 'sunni' way of thinking(for example) and follow the methodology of shiah or 'quran only'. Would this be considered as turning away from islam? We have to be very careful in defining people as muslim or non-muslim.(peoples lives' and their quality of treatment by others can be put at risk with these definitions). Just look at the treatment of some shiahs by some sunnis. Do we want more death and suffering because of religious intolerance and division? (look at iraq,afghanistan,karbala,the crusades etc. etc..) I would like to Increase the peace.(isnt that what islam is for?)
Peace all.

Ah... you see, that's why I qualified the conversion as FORCED conversion. I think it is a great crime to use force to convert, whether it be to Islam or from Islam or whatever. So we are not talking here of using reason and other peaceful methods for converting people, but rather of religious war, trying to get people to disbelieve through the force of arms, terror, or other such methodology. I fully believe in the freedom of religion, and the right to choose what to believe in. That is a God given right. And hence it is a grave right to take that right away from someone. So truth be told, I consider karbala and the crusades clear cases of "corruption of the land", because they clearly did not respect the freedom of religion.
I will go further by saying that simply converting away from Islam is not a worldly crime, and therefore has no worldly punishment - only God can determine whether the conversion has actually taken place, and what the appropriate punishment is, so we should let God take care of crimes committed against him, and we humans will take care of crimes committed against us (within Koranic limits).

unknownuser

Peace claurianta. Sorry! ops I misunderstood what you said.Forced conversion is indeed different. I respect and agree with a lot of your last post. Thanks for the clarification.
Peace.

thegod

perhaps enquirer did not regard the word 'forcibly', or perhaps meant conversion from 'shia islam' to 'sunni islam' or vice verse, even if using force. i mean in that case even though force is used, u still convert from 1 islam to another islam! i know how it sounds! lolz!

thegod

oppps! sorry about that last post enquirer, i did not realise u had already posted some clarification. -)

unknownuser

Peace thegod,thats fine,no problem.
Peace.

claurianta

Peace claurianta. Sorry! ops I misunderstood what you said.Forced conversion is indeed different. I respect and agree with a lot of your last post. Thanks for the clarification. )
Peace.

Peace enquirer. No problem. We are all here to try to understand, and I perhaps I didn't explain it well enough the first time. It is better to ask a question than to live in ignorance )